"The Worker" had the misfortune of believing the preaching of the new-Iskrists. And so he goes about spouting labor-movement phrases in the spirit of Akimov. "Our intellectual leaders... did not set themselves the task... of developing the consciousness and self-activity of the workers..." The strivings for self-activity "were systematically persecuted." "In none of the types of organization was there, or is there, any place for the development of workers' self-activity..." "Economic struggle was completely abandoned," even to propaganda and agitation meetings "workers were not admitted" (can you imagine!). Demonstrations had "outlived their usefulness" – all these horrors (which the old "Rabochee Delo" had long been crying out against the old "Iskra") were caused, of course, by "bureaucratic centralists," i.e., the majority of our Second Congress, which fought against labor-movement tendencies. Incited by the embittered minority against the Party Congress, the unfortunate "Worker" tears the Congress to shreds for the reason that it was "without us" (without the workers), "without our participation," there were "almost no workers" there – while, of course, modestly passing over the fact that all the actual workers who were delegates to the Congress, Stepanov, Gorsky, and Braun, were decisive supporters of the majority and opponents of intellectual spinelessness. But that is not important. What is important is the degree of endless depravity to which the preaching of the new-Iskrists leads, those who "tear to shreds" the Congress after their defeat in elections, tear it to shreds before those who did not participate in the Congress, inciting them to spit upon all sorts of social-democratic congresses, tear it to shreds at the very time when they have so nobly squeezed themselves into the central institutions, which operate exclusively in the name of the Congress. Would not the position of Ryazanov be more honest (see his pamphlet: "Shattered Illusions"), who openly declared the Congress a sham and who, at least, does not use from this "sham" any titles or honors?

Extremely characteristic, however, for the psychology of the worker, even though incited against the "majority," is that he is not satisfied with phrases about autonomy, workers' self-activity, and so forth. He repeats these words, like any new-Iskrist or labor-movement advocate, but with sober proletarian instinct he demands deeds to back up the words; he is not satisfied with being fed on fables. Fine words, he says, remain mere words "without a change in the composition" (the "Worker's" emphasis) of the leaders. One must demand workers' access to all serious Party institutions; one must achieve equal rights with intellectuals. With the deep distrust of a true proletarian and a true democrat toward all phrase-mongering, the "Worker" says: where is the guarantee that the committees will not be composed solely of intellectuals? This strikes not at the brow but straight at the eye of our new-Iskrists. This magnificent question shows that the labor-movement agitation has not yet muddied the clear thinking of the proletariat. He directly declares that the committee on which he worked "in principle remained a minority committee on paper (note!), – in practice it differed in nothing from the committees of the majority. We workers had access to no institution (not to mention the committee) that was responsible, and hence guiding."

No one could have exposed the Mensheviks so thoroughly as this worker-Menshevik. He understood that without guarantees, talk about the autonomy and self-activity of the proletariat remains vulgar phrase-mongering. But what guarantees are possible in social-democratic organizations – have you thought about this, comrade "Worker"? What guarantees are possible against the fact that revolutionaries, having come together at a Party Congress, will then, offended at not being elected by the Congress, cry out that the Congress was a reactionary attempt to entrench Iskrist views (Trotsky in a pamphlet published under the editorship of the new "Iskra"), that the Congress's decisions are not sacred, that there were no workers from the masses at the Congress? What guarantees are possible against the fact that a general decision regarding the forms and norms of Party organization – a decision which is called the organizational charter of the Party and which cannot exist except in the form of such a charter – what guarantees are possible that this decision will not later be torn up by spineless people in the part they find disagreeable, under the pretext of bureaucratism and formalism in such things as charters? What guarantees are possible against the fact that people who have collectively violated the adopted rules of organization will later start reasoning that organization is a process, organization is a tendency, organization is a form keeping pace with content, and that therefore it is absurd and utopian to demand the observance of organizational rules? The "Worker," the author of the pamphlet, gave no thought to any of these questions. But he came so close, so directly confronted them, posed them so sincerely and boldly point-blank to the phrase-mongers and political manipulators, that we wholeheartedly recommend his pamphlet. This pamphlet is an excellent example of how the knights of the "beautiful word" are exposed by their own supporters.

The "Worker" rises up, on the word of others, against Lenin's "organizational plan," without indicating, as is customary, a single clear and definite point of disagreement with the plan, referring to Panin and Cherevanin (who gave nothing but irritated words) and not even attempting to look at Lenin's notorious letter to a Petrograd comrade. But if the "Worker" had not believed his instigators blindly and had looked at this letter, he would, to his great surprise, have read there:

"One must especially strive to ensure that as many workers as possible become fully conscious and professional revolutionaries and get into the committee. One must strive to introduce into the committee worker-revolutionaries who have the greatest connections and the best 'name' among the working masses. The committee should therefore, as much as possible, include all the main leaders of the workers' movement from among the workers themselves" (Letter, pp. 7–8)[23].

Read and re-read these lines, comrade "Worker," and you will see how the labor-movement advocates and new-Iskrists have deceived you, those who tear apart the old "Iskra" and its supporters, the "majority" of the Second Congress. Study these lines carefully and accept this challenge from me: find me another place in our social-democratic literature where the question you have posed – of "workers and intellectuals in our organizations" – is put so clearly, directly, and decisively, and where there is an indication of the necessity to introduce as many workers as possible into the committee, to introduce, if possible, all the leaders of the workers' movement from among the workers into the committee. I assert that you will not be able to point to any other such place. I assert that anyone who has taken the trouble to study our Party disputes from documents, from "Rabochee Delo," from "Iskra" and pamphlets, and not from the gossip of scandal-mongers, will see the falsity and demagogic character of the new-Iskrist preaching.

You may object: Lenin might have written this, but his advice was not always followed. Of course, that is possible. No Party writer can vouch that all those who call themselves his supporters actually always carry out his advice in practice. But, in the first place, would not such a social-democrat who called himself a supporter of the "letter" and at the same time did not carry out its advice stand self-condemned by the very letter itself? Was the letter printed for intellectuals alone, and not for workers too? Does the writer have any other means of promoting his views except a printed statement? And, secondly, if these pieces of advice were not followed, by the testimony of at least the "Worker," neither by Mensheviks nor by Bolsheviks, does it not then become clear that the Mensheviks had no right whatever to fabricate such a "disagreement" with the Bolsheviks? that their incitement of workers against the Bolsheviks for ignoring the latter's workers' self-activity was demagoguery?

What, then, is the real difference on this point between Mensheviks and Bolsheviks? Is it not that the Bolsheviks much earlier and much more directly gave clear and definite advice to introduce workers into the committees? Is it not that the Bolsheviks despised and despise "beautiful words" about workers' autonomy and self-activity when those words (as with the Mensheviks) remain merely words?

Look at how the respectable, worthy, and venerable Axelrod now wriggles in his preface, cornered by the proletarian straightforwardness and daring of a worker who has read himself full of labor-movement wisdom from the "remarkable" feuilletons of Axelrod, from the unforgettable articles of Martov, from the excellent (from the perspective of the interests of the "majority") pamphlet of Trotsky.

The "Worker" tries to dispute the assertion of an Ordinary Contributor that our Party organization, since economism, has become relatively more proletarian in its personal composition. The "Worker," it is clear, is wrong. Anyone who has closely observed affairs in our Party over any considerable length of time knows this. But the most curious thing is to see how our Axelrod does an about-face. Who does not remember his magnificent assertions – so skillfully used against social-democracy by the enemy, by liberal liberationists – that social-democracy is an organization of intellectuals? Who does not remember how the Mensheviks, offended by the Party, repeated and hammered home this slander against the Party? And so this very same Axelrod, frightened by the direct and honest conclusions that the "Worker" drew from this slander, wriggles and twists:

"In the period of the rise and initial development of social-democracy," he says in his preface, "Russian revolutionary party was a purely intellectual party... Now conscious-revolutionary workers constitute themselves the main detachments (note!) of the social-democratic party" (p. 15).

Poor "Worker"! How he has been punished for believing Axelrod's "beautiful words"! And those will always be punished who believe writers who for a year and a half speak now one thing, now another, depending on the needs of "cooptation."

Look at how Axelrod wriggles away from the question of "guarantees" put to him point-blank. Why, it is charming, it is a pearl of new-Iskrist literature. The "Worker" speaks of the relation of workers and intellectuals in the organizations; the "Worker" is absolutely right a thousand times when he declares that without guarantees, without equal rights – i.e., without the elective principle – beautiful words about non-bureaucratic centralism remain mere phrase-mongering. And how does Axelrod answer? "Preoccupation with the idea of changing the legal position of workers in our organizations is one-sided," the author wrongly transfers the question of eliminating the evil "into the realm of formal-organizational relations," wrongly forgets that "the special task of equalizing rights" is solved only "in the process of the further development of our practice in the social-democratic direction." "The question that specially occupies the author of the pamphlet can be radically resolved only in the process of conscious collective work of our Party."

Is this not a pearl, indeed? For Axelrod himself raised and was the first to pose precisely the organizational and only the organizational question at the Congress of the League and in the new "Iskra" (No. 55), and when the "Worker" writes a special pamphlet on organization, he is majestically told: formality is not important, but the process of work is!

It is not the principles of organization that matter to the new "Iskra" and to Axelrod, but the process of idle talk to justify an unprincipled position. And there is no other content whatever in the whole notorious theory of organization-as-process (see especially the articles of Rosa Luxemburg) except the defense of unprincipled conduct – a theory that vulgarizes and prostitutes Marxism.

We repeat: one cannot sufficiently recommend the remarkable pamphlet of the "Worker" for becoming acquainted with all the falsity of the organizational position of the new-Iskrists. We especially earnestly recommend this pamphlet to those workers whom the Mensheviks are inciting against the Bolsheviks with preaching about the elective principle[24]. Workers splendidly expose phrase-mongers and liars. They pose the question excellently: either the elective principle, or merely advice to introduce workers into committees. If the elective principle, then let us have formal guarantees, charter guarantees, charter equality. Workers will see how the new-Iskrists squirm away from this question like devils before matins. If advice to introduce workers is desirable, if the old "Iskra" was right when it considered democracy – i.e., universal application of the elective principle in Russian underground organizations – incompatible with the autocratic-police regime, then you will nowhere find such direct and instructive advice to introduce workers into committees as from the majority.

"Vpered" No. 2, January 14 (1), 1905

Printed from the text of the newspaper "Vpered"